Comments for Rennison Writes http://andyrennison.wordpress.com Because left-handed wisdom is 27% better Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:54:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The essential peril of People Power by nataliedonovan http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/the-essential-peril-of-people-power/#comment-9 nataliedonovan Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:54:33 +0000 http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-9 Hi I too don't have the answer to your question, but have similar concerns about the mob mentality that exists online - have a look at my blog: http://www.nataliedonovan.wordpress.com What do you think? Hi I too don’t have the answer to your question, but have similar concerns about the mob mentality that exists online – have a look at my blog:

http://www.nataliedonovan.wordpress.com

What do you think?

]]> Comment on The essential peril of People Power by egrommet http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/the-essential-peril-of-people-power/#comment-8 egrommet Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:44:36 +0000 http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-8 Not sure about the exhaust analogy, but some good points in here. The issue about the Baby P rants is that people don't know they're not allowed to say that. Is it their fault they want people to know (and I'm not talking about the appeals for the vigilante stuff) - when they perceive an injustice is being done. I've always disliked the "names have been withheld for legal reasons" - could mean anything, but the law is the law and a banning order is just that. So mainstream news outlets don't say, and the public becomes annoyed with them and the courts. Don't forget that the laws were written when only a few had the power to publish, now we all do - how should it be policed? How should it be altered? Like you, I don't have an answer at this point. Not sure about the exhaust analogy, but some good points in here.

The issue about the Baby P rants is that people don’t know they’re not allowed to say that. Is it their fault they want people to know (and I’m not talking about the appeals for the vigilante stuff) – when they perceive an injustice is being done.

I’ve always disliked the “names have been withheld for legal reasons” – could mean anything, but the law is the law and a banning order is just that. So mainstream news outlets don’t say, and the public becomes annoyed with them and the courts.

Don’t forget that the laws were written when only a few had the power to publish, now we all do – how should it be policed? How should it be altered?

Like you, I don’t have an answer at this point.

]]> Comment on Robert Peston: News Cannibal? by egrommet http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/robert-peston-news-cannibal/#comment-3 egrommet Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:14:46 +0000 http://andyrennison.wordpress.com/?p=30#comment-3 One of the key issues here is whether you believe news should be served straight out of the oven, and sometimes half baked, or cured until the next news delivery vehicle rolls in to town. Newspapers always levelled some of your criticism at broadcast - it was sent out before the story was properly built etc. Do I believe that - no, of course not. The issue is about getting the news out. TV and radio have been able to get news out fast, but make corrections as it goes along - nothing remains static in a breaking story and what appeared to be correct at 1pm may well be different at 3pm. Should this be any different? If you remember Paul Bradshaw's news diamond, this is a case in point. Break the news, then give a first taste, then give it depth, context etc. I agree with your final point, but why not use a news story to add depth to an initial break? Why does it have to be the other way around? One of the key issues here is whether you believe news should be served straight out of the oven, and sometimes half baked, or cured until the next news delivery vehicle rolls in to town.

Newspapers always levelled some of your criticism at broadcast – it was sent out before the story was properly built etc. Do I believe that – no, of course not.

The issue is about getting the news out. TV and radio have been able to get news out fast, but make corrections as it goes along – nothing remains static in a breaking story and what appeared to be correct at 1pm may well be different at 3pm.

Should this be any different? If you remember Paul Bradshaw’s news diamond, this is a case in point.

Break the news, then give a first taste, then give it depth, context etc.

I agree with your final point, but why not use a news story to add depth to an initial break? Why does it have to be the other way around?

]]>